Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: jonc Date: Aug 27, 2009 4:36pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Short Feature Films

I suppose most films have periods that seem kind of dull or insignificant, but these scenes give contrast to the more intense action or drama scenes, and magnify their effect. Hangover, on the other hand, tries to be funny throughout, and the joke just starts to get stale.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cosmicolada Date: Aug 27, 2009 7:22pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Short Feature Films

I think it just comes down to personal preference. I've always favored a film that tells its story with swift economy, hits the main points, wraps it up, and gets out. Not a requirement for me, but it sure helps a lot. I was just curious if anyone felt the way I do or has a similar preference for these shorter feature films.

Edit: A perfect example of a short feature that is among my top few favorite films is Roger Corman's 1957 Not Of This Earth, which runs only 64 minutes in the theatrical cut. (It was padded to 67 minutes for TV syndication later on.) Most Corman fans (Cormanites?) usually mention this film as one of his best. Also, the original versions of Bucket of Blood and Little Shop of Horrors (among his most popular) were in the 65-minute range as well.

This post was modified by cosmicolada on 2009-08-28 02:22:28